You are herecontent / Brit Hume Says He Wants to Profit Off the Terrorist Attack

Brit Hume Says He Wants to Profit Off the Terrorist Attack

By David Sirota

Media Matters points out that Fox News' top anchorman, Brit Hume, gave us a glimpse into just how cynical, greedy and disgusting the right-wing's outlook on the world is:

"My first thought when I heard - just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"
- Fox News's Brit Hume, 7/7/05

That's right - his first thought wasn't "how tragic," or "let's say a prayer for the dead," or "how can I help the victims" - his first thought was, there was a terrorist attack, how can I personally profit off it? In fact, his impulse to use the bloodshed to make himself money was so intense, he actually voiced it on national television (FYI - in case you'd like to voice your displeasure, Brit's email address is brit.hume@foxnews.com and his office number is 202-824-6300).

Of course, this was only the worst example today from Fox. Earlier in the day, a Fox reporter seemed to cheer on the attack because he said "it works to our advantage." Meanwhile, Fox's Stuart Varney was genuinely excited that the attack will mean other progressive issues will now be knocked out of the public debate. "It takes global warming off the front burner," Varney frothed. "It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again."

Remember, these people are using the public's airwaves to spew out this bile. To call these people nauseating is an insult to nausea.

Comment viewing options

Let's all see if we can get his sorry ass canned. What a despicable example to be setting for people. He has a duty to be... OK so he works for FOX. Still, let's see if we can get him into the unemployment line.

Yes, we can all look at this media and hang our heads in shame. The most important task we have at hand is to be informed, be smart. Realize what Judith Miller said yesterday,"this government is to powerful". That sould bring chills to your souls!

A federal judge on Wednesday jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to divulge the name of a source to a grand jury investigating the leak of the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame.

"There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify," said U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan of the showdown in a case that has had both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney interviewed by investigators. "If we give her a pass this time... then we are on a very slippery slope that leads to anarchy."

The Senate Judiciary Committee could be the next stop for those involved in the federal probe into who exposed Plame, as Congress weighs a bill that would protect reporters who refuse to identify their sources.

Witnesses at the hearing, tentatively scheduled for July 20th, could include the media outlets and the prosecutor in the case. Plame's identity was first revealed publicly in a column by Robert Novak. The witness list is now being prepared; it's not known whether Novak will be among those asked to appear.

Wednesday, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. He said he would do so now because his source gave him specific authority to do so.

"I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again," said Cooper, as he began his comments in court.

"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.

As for Miller, "There will be no appeal now, all the appellate issues were exhausted last week when the Supreme Court refused to get involved in the case," reports CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen. "So in the absence of a deal with the feds, Miller will be in jail until the judge releases her, probably when the grand jury involved in the case disbands this fall.

"After some time has passed, after Miller has been in jail for a number of weeks or even months, Miller's attorneys can go back to court to try to convince the trial judge that the time for leniency has come. But unless the prosecutor backs up that request I don't think it'll have much traction."

The judge speculated that Miller's confinement might cause her source to give her a more specific waiver of confidentiality, as did Cooper's.

Cooper, talking to reporters afterward, called it "a sad time."

"My heart goes out to Judy. I told her as she left the court to stay strong," Cooper added. "I think this clearly points out the need for some kind of a national shield law. There is no federal shield law and that is why we find ourselves here today."

"Judy Miller made a commitment to her source and she's standing by it," New York Times executive editor Bill Keller told reporters.

Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer who represented Miller, told reporters: "Judy is an honorable woman, adhering to the highest tradition of her profession and the highest tradition of humanity."

"Judy Miller has not been accused of a crime or convicted of a crime," Abrams said. "She has been held in civil contempt of court."

The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had responded in court to Miller's refusal to name her source by saying "we can't have 50,000 journalists" each making their own decision about whether to reveal sources.

"We cannot tolerate that," he said. "We are trying to get to the bottom of whether a crime was committed and by whom."

Another Miller attorney, Robert Bennett, said earlier that prosecutors traditionally have shown great respect for journalists and "have had the good judgment not to push these cases very often."

Hogan held the reporters in civil contempt of court in October, rejecting their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. Last month the Supreme Court refused to intervene.

In court documents filed Tuesday, Fitzgerald urged Hogan to take the unusual step of jailing the reporters, saying that may be the only way to get them to talk.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald had disclosed Tuesday that a source of Cooper and Miller had waived confidentiality, giving the reporters permission to reveal where they got their information. The prosecutor did not identify the source, nor did he specify whether the source for each reporter was the same person.

Cooper said he had been told earlier that his source had signed a general waiver of confidentiality but that he did not trust such waivers because he thought they had been gained from executive branch employees under duress. He told the court that he needed not a general waiver but a specific waiver from his source, which he did not get until Wednesday.

"I received express personal consent" from the source, Cooper told the judge.

Hogan and Fitzgerald accepted Cooper's offer.

"That would purge you of contempt," Hogan said.

Prior to the hearing, Miller argued that it is imperative for reporters to honor their commitments to provide cover to sources who will only reveal important information if they are assured anonymity. Forcing reporters to renege on the pledge undercuts their ability to do their job, she said.

Last week, Time Inc., last week provided Fitzgerald with records, notes and e-mail traffic involving Cooper, who had argued that it was therefore no longer necessary for him to testify. Time also had been found in contempt and officials there said after losing appeals it had no choice but to turn over the information.

The case is seen as a key test of press freedom and many media groups have lined up behind the reporters. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources.

"This is not the first time a journalist has gone to prison to protect a source and it won't be the last time," reports Cohen. "It happens because the courts and Congress have not recognized that the First Amendment's free press rights protect journalists from having to reveal their sources during a criminal investigation."

Fitzgerald is investigating who in the administration leaked Plame's identity. Her name was disclosed in a column by Robert Novak days after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, impugned part of President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.

Wilson was sent to Africa by the Bush administration to investigate an intelligence claim that Saddam Hussein may have purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger in the late 1990s for use in nuclear weapons. Wilson said he could not verify the claim and criticized the administration for manipulating the intelligence to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Novak, whose column cited as sources two unidentified senior Bush administration officials, has refused to say whether he has testified before the grand jury or been subpoenaed. Novak has said he "will reveal all" after the matter is resolved and that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status.

Cooper spoke to White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove after Wilson's public criticism of Bush and before Novak's column ran, according to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, who denies that Rove leaked Plame's identity to anyone. Cooper's story mentioning Plame's name appeared after Novak's column. Miller did some reporting, but never wrote a story.

Among the witnesses Fitzgerald's investigators have questioned besides Bush and Cheney are Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; and former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is now the attorney general.

Fitzgerald has said that his investigation is complete except for testimony from Cooper and Miller.

– February 2002: Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson is asked by the Bush administration to travel to Niger to check out an intelligence report that Niger sold yellowcake uranium to Iraq in the late 1990s for use in nuclear weapons.

– Jan. 28, 2003: In the State of the Union address, President Bush states that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" but does not mention that U.S. agencies had questioned the validity of the British intelligence.

– July 6: In a New York Times op-ed piece, Wilson writes that he could not verify that Niger sold uranium yellowcake to Iraq.

– July 17: Matthew Cooper writes on Time.com that government officials have told him Wilson's wife is a CIA official monitoring WMD. Another article appears in the magazine's July 21 print issue.

– Sept 29-30: The Justice Department informs then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee. Gonzalez informs the president the next day. Bush tells reporters: "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

– Dec. 30: Chicago U.S. attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald is named special counsel to investigate whether a crime was committed.

– May 21, 2004: A grand jury subpoenas Cooper and Time Inc., seeking testimony and documents. Time says it will fight subpoena.

– Aug 9: U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan's rejects claims that the First Amendment protects Cooper from testifying and finds them in contempt of court. Time magazine appeals the ruling.

– Aug 12 and 14: The grand jury subpoenas New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who gathered material for a story but never wrote one. The New York Times says it will fight subpoena.

– Sept 13: According to court documents, the grand jury issues a further subpoena to Cooper seeking additional information relating to the case. Cooper and Time move to quash the subpoena.

– Oct 7: Miller held in contempt.

– Oct. 13: Cooper and Time held in contempt.

– Feb. 15, 2005: Appeals court rules against Miller and Cooper. Both Time magazine and The New York Times appeal to the Supreme Court.

– June 27: The Supreme Court refuses to intervene.

– July 1: Time magazine agrees to comply with a court order to turn over Cooper's notes, e-mail and other documents. Cooper and Miller continue to refuse to divulge sources.

– July 6: U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan orders Miller jailed at the Alexandria Detention Center in Arlington, Virginia, for refusing to divulge her source. Cooper agrees to name his source after receiving permission from the source to do so.

I hope the British are smarter than the Americans when responding to these terrorist attacks. We were lied to and sold a bill of goods that has cost us more than I care to think about, lives, money and prestige in the world come to mind.

I keep remembering all I have learned over the years on raising children. Bullying begets bullying. Break the pattern of abuse cycle. If children see abusers they become abusers.

Would someone please explain why these same rules of behavior don't apply throughout the life cycle!

People just think I'm corny, but I'm quite serious. Moms can see right through a bully instantly, we have that instinct. Bush and his Bullies are the worst and most obvious I have ever seen in adult America in my lifetime. Their maturity was clearly stunted along the way by being spoiled rotten growing up. Of course blame it on their Moms, but something tells me these Bullies were really neglected by their parents and raised by 'the help'.

It has finally come to a point where I no longer have to listen to these right wingnuts. I am actually able to turn the venom and spew off rather than meet some self-imposed requirement to know what these weasels are saying. The right wingnuts have become predictable to the point where nothing they say is new.

There are $Billions of Petro-Dollars traded every day on several exchanges. I am glad this subject has finally been broached. I believe that the Administration went to war to keep Saddam from selling oil on a new Iraqi run exchange based on the Euro Currency rather than $dollars; international inspector "go-ahead" and blessing was in the offing.

All Saddam would have to do was get a clean bill of health from the UN inspectors; he had already been ousted or he quit OPEC. Selling "new" oil from the second largest known oil reserves in the world at below OPEC prices would have caused a US Dollar freefall.

I bet that the "secret meeting" Cheny chaired examined the downside risk of Saddam's new attack on the US. I think they looked into an abyss to which there was no bottom; all their wealth and plans for the hydro-carbon future was in jeopardy.

They function on some very strict rules; everything remains manageable. They had no alternative to war because the threat was too great.

Watch Iran; they are going to try the same thing that Saddam was trying to undertake.

CHOOSE LANGUAGE

Support This Site

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.

User login

Username: *

Password: *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.